R.B. Bissell

The moving party, a creditor, brought a motion to admit fresh evidence on its appeal from the trustee's disallowance of its proof of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding.

The trustee opposed the motion, arguing that the parties had previously agreed to limit the appeal record and that admitting the evidence would undermine the efficiency of the bankruptcy process.

The court found that no binding agreement precluded the evidence and that refusing to admit the newly discovered documents would result in an injustice to the creditor.

The court exercised its discretion to admit the fresh evidence, allowing the trustee to file responding documentation.

The moving parties, purchasers of condominium units, brought a motion seeking a declaration that the court-appointed receiver had no right to charge a 'parks levy' as an adjustment on the closing of their units.

The receiver argued that the contractual provision allowed it to charge the purchasers for the notional value of parkland conveyed to the municipality.

The court found that the contractual language was ambiguous and, applying the principles of contractual interpretation and contra proferentem in the context of a consumer contract, ruled in favour of the purchasers.

The receiver was ordered to repay the parks levy amounts with interest.

The Receiver sought a discharge order, addressing the enforceability of an indemnity agreement and entitlement to an HST refund.

The Indemnifying Parties argued the receivership proceeding was an improper venue for contract breach claims and raised misrepresentation defenses regarding the indemnity agreement, as well as a potential claim for the Receiver's alleged mismanagement of life insurance policies.

The court found the receivership proceeding an appropriate venue, granted summary judgment on the enforceability of the indemnity agreement, and denied a stay of enforcement.

The court also deferred the HST refund issue for further clarification.

The applicant tenants sought a declaration that their commercial lease was renewed or, alternatively, relief from forfeiture after missing the deadline to provide written notice of renewal.

The respondent landlords argued the renewal option had expired.

The court found that the landlords had repeatedly misstated the lease term, leading the tenants to believe they were in the fourth year rather than the fifth.

While the landlords did not waive the notice requirement, the court granted relief from forfeiture because the tenants made diligent efforts to renew and their failure to provide timely notice was caused by the landlords' misstatements.

Following a wrongful dismissal trial where the plaintiff was awarded damages based on a three‑month notice period totaling $32,425.39, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $60,000 or alternatively partial indemnity costs of approximately $41,530, while the defendant argued that $25,000 all‑inclusive was appropriate.

Applying Rule 57.01 and considering proportionality in simplified procedure cases, the court emphasized that costs must be reasonable relative to the amount in dispute and recovery obtained.

The court also considered the plaintiff’s partial success, unsuccessful inducement arguments, and the significant legal resources devoted to a short trial involving modest damages.

Costs were fixed at $25,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.

An employee brought an action for wrongful dismissal after termination without notice.

The employer relied on a termination clause limiting notice to the minimum required by the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The court held that although the clause clearly referenced the statutory minimum notice period, it failed to provide for continuation of benefits during the notice period, contrary to the ESA.

As a result, the entire termination clause was void and the employee was entitled to common law reasonable notice.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court determined that three months’ reasonable notice was appropriate and awarded damages including salary, car allowance, pension contributions, and modest special damages.

The applicants, a group of companies owned by Dondeb Inc., sought an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to enable an orderly liquidation of their assets.

The application was opposed by approximately 75% of the secured creditors, who argued for individual receiverships due to a lack of confidence in the applicants' principal and the burden of CCAA administrative costs.

The court dismissed the CCAA application, finding it unlikely that a successful plan could be developed and approved by the creditors.

Instead, the court issued a Global Receivership Order, which was supported by the opposing creditors, to achieve an orderly liquidation at a lower cost.

The moving party insurer sought an order requiring the corporate plaintiff to post security for costs under Rule 56.01(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs award.

The evidence established that the plaintiff corporation was impecunious and had significant writs of execution registered against it.

The moving party further argued that the plaintiff’s lawyers, acting under a deferred fee arrangement and standing to benefit from any recovery, should be required to post security as creditors of the plaintiff.

The court held that although creditors may in some circumstances be required to post security, solicitors acting under deferred fee arrangements are not analogous to creditors or shareholders with control over litigation.

Ordering lawyers to post security would create a significant disincentive to such retainers and undermine access to justice.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed.